For some, this means there's some hard thinking involved to get your head round it.

For others, it's an excuse to dismiss science as an exercise in mental contortion necessary to believe impossible things, disconnected from the "real world" where if A causes B and B causes C then A cannot possibly cause the opposite of C.

This choice is usually made around age 14 upon exposure to science at school, and the people who don't get it and make the second choice are easy prey to AGW and science denial.

They're the ones hooting that AGW can't possibly cause more ice, and loving it because they think it validates their ego-preserving image of scientists as silly people who can convince themselves that impossible things are true.

Yes, deniers, the world is complex and surprising.

Yes, it takes hard work to get your head round that.

No, if you can't get your head round it, it doesn't mean it's not true.

There is LESS SEA ICE around Antarctica. That is, area has increased at a lower rate than thickness has decreased, leading to a decrease in volume.

The conditions (outward spreading winds) that lead to this short term increase in AREA were forecast long before it was found.

The forecast increase in area lasts about a decade or so and then starts a retreat that lasts for millenia.

The increase in area is trivial.You cannot detect it by eye on a graph.

The amount of WINTER sea ice is of little relevance. Their was growth of winter levels even in the arctic, yet the ice was thinner and more fragile, leading to the record SUMMER ice minimum. The winter sea ice level is not relevant because it is during a time when the sun is not seen so the ice cannot affect insolation. It is summer mimimums that are relevant. However, when Arctic sea ice is in summer minimum, Antarctic sea ice is in winter maximum. Inconvenient because it draws comparisons that are meaningless.

Is the increase of sea levels due to global warming causing a lot of the natural disasters. The reason I ask this is because there seem to be a lot of hurricanes and tsunamis which can only accure in warmer waters. Is the melting also causing warmer seas?

Is the increase of sea levels due to global warming causing a lot of the natural disasters. The reason I ask this is because there seem to be a lot of hurricanes and tsunamis which can only accure in warmer waters. Is the melting also causing warmer seas?

It's not the rise in sea level (yet) because there hasn't been that much rise in sea level (yet). But ocean temperatures have definitely been rising, & they're getting more acidic due to absorbing CO2.

Climatologists have been arguing about what'll happen to storms as the earth warms, but it seems like tropical cyclones (hurricanes to us) be stronger, though not necessarily more numerous.

Having said that, warming in the Arctic has meant less of a temp difference between high & mid-latitudes. This has meant a slower, "wavier" (north-south) jet stream; Rossby waves develop.

This just means that whatever weather we have in the northern hemisphere, it'll be stronger & last longer. Longer, more severe heat waves, cold snaps, droughts & storms.

......warming in the Arctic has meant less of a temp difference between high & mid-latitudes. This has meant a slower, "wavier" (north-south) jet stream; Rossby waves develop.

Some of the above normal warming in the Arctic is due to AGW enhanced warm fronts strongly pushed into the Arctic & high Arctic. The warm fronts have more vigorously pushed cold Arctic fronts to the south....... where people live, even as far south as Central America, China & India. That is why people(especially AGW deniers) are complaining about cold weather.

<quoted text>Some of the above normal warming in the Arctic is due to AGW enhanced warm fronts strongly pushed into the Arctic & high Arctic. The warm fronts have more vigorously pushed cold Arctic fronts to the south....... where people live, even as far south as Central America, China & India. That is why people(especially AGW deniers) are complaining about cold weather.

Agree. I think we're saying the same thing but with different language. The Wiki article sort of explains those Rossby waves.

We just can't listen to the deniers when they complain about cold or storms. We expect more of both at some times in some places.

Is the increase of sea levels due to global warming causing a lot of the natural disasters. The reason I ask this is because there seem to be a lot of hurricanes and tsunamis which can only accure in warmer waters. Is the melting also causing warmer seas?

There will most likely be an increase in severity of Atlantic hurricanes due to warming of the oceans due to all the ice melt flowing in from Greenland and Antartica ;)

<quoted text>Agree. I think we're saying the same thing but with different language. The Wiki article sort of explains those Rossby waves.We just can't listen to the deniers when they complain about cold or storms. We expect more of both at some times in some places.

<quoted text>There will most likely be an increase in severity of Atlantic hurricanes due to warming of the oceans due to all the ice melt flowing in from Greenland and Antartica ;)

Actually, if a bunch of ice melts from Greenland, cold, fresh water could be suddenly dumped into the northern Atlantic, temporarily slowing, or even shutting down, the thermohaline circulation, of which the Gulf Stream is a part. This could cause cooling in northern Europe & eastern North America.

That may have happened ~12 Kya with the Younger Dryas brief cooling. A chunk of the Laurentide ice sheet may have broken off North America. Who knows? Maybe that's when the Great Lakes started draining into the St Lawrence Seaway instead of the Mississippi, where they went during previous interglacials. Niagara Falls is young geologically.

<quoted text>Actually, if a bunch of ice melts from Greenland, cold, fresh water could be suddenly dumped into the northern Atlantic, temporarily slowing, or even shutting down, the thermohaline circulation, of which the Gulf Stream is a part. This could cause cooling in northern Europe & eastern North America.That may have happened ~12 Kya with the Younger Dryas brief cooling. A chunk of the Laurentide ice sheet may have broken off North America. Who knows? Maybe that's when the Great Lakes started draining into the St Lawrence Seaway instead of the Mississippi, where they went during previous interglacials. Niagara Falls is young geologically.

Sounds all very scientific.Oh well...so much for the scientific consensus that climate change could result in runaway global warming.

<quoted text>Sounds all very scientific.Oh well...so much for the scientific consensus that climate change could result in runaway global warming.

You will never get Mr. wonderful AKA a narcissist to agree to anything but its own swelled head point of view. You have to talk in scientific science fiction make a conversion to science. 36% of his own peer reviewed scientists agree on climate change. 64% of his peer reviewed disagree with climate change.

<quoted text>You will never get Mr. wonderful AKA a narcissist to agree to anything but its own swelled head point of view. You have to talk in scientific science fiction make a conversion to science. 36% of his own peer reviewed scientists agree on climate change. 64% of his peer reviewed disagree with climate change.

PHDYou are incorrect. I agree with anyone who can post factual information, whether it conforms to what I believe or not.

And if you think "64% of peer reviewed scientists disagree with climate change" (whatever that means), POST THE LINK.

<quoted text>PHDYou are incorrect. I agree with anyone who can post factual information, whether it conforms to what I believe or not.And if you think "64% of peer reviewed scientists disagree with climate change" (whatever that means), POST THE LINK.

PHD wrote:You will never get Mr. wonderful AKA a narcissist to agree to anything but its own swelled head point of view.

Gee I must have missed it. I don't recall anyone referring to you as Mr. wonderful. Now that you attached that title to yourself you must complete the title. AKA a narcissist with a swelled head.

<quoted text>PHD wrote:You will never get Mr. wonderful AKA a narcissist to agree to anything but its own swelled head point of view.Gee I must have missed it. I don't recall anyone referring to you as Mr. wonderful. Now that you attached that title to yourself you must complete the title. AKA a narcissist with a swelled head.

Whatever Penny. You are indeed a foul name-caller with NOTHING of value to contribute.

Dr. Roy Spencer, a team leader for NASA's Aqua satellite, studied a decade's worth of satellite data regarding cloud surface temperatures. "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," he writes. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

The notable US science writer Phil Plait “marveled” at Powell’s “persistence in unearthing the facts and figures”, saying:

His premise was simple: if global warming isn’t real and there’s an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.

But Powell’s findings were clear, says Plait:

There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 per cent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap.

When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science. It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.

The facts are:There is LESS SEA ICE around Antarctica. That is, area has increased at a lower rate than thickness has decreased, leading to a decrease in volume.

"The map above shows sea ice extent around Antarctica on September 26, 2012, when ice covered more of the Southern Ocean than at any other time in the satellite record. The map is based on an NSIDC analysis of data from the Special Sensor Microwave/Imagers flown in the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program. Land is dark gray, and ice shelves—which are attached to land-based glaciers but floating on the ocean—are light gray. The yellow outline shows the median sea ice extent in September from 1979 to 2000. Sea ice extent is defined as the total area in which the ice concentration is at least 15 percent."http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.ph...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.